No, it was not unwarranted. First he accuses me of "changing goalposts" and then he does it himself. Next, he complains about being outvoted which is a complete and utter lie. There are countless examples of this type of asshattery.

Plus his notions about "governments should not be bound by the decisions of their predecessors" shows that he has no fucking clue at all of how international treaties work and are upheld. And this is the same guy who consistently rambles on about the great chances his country will get through the same treaties he feels countries should not feel bound by as soon as their government changes. He does not even comprehend how absurdly stupid such a notion is.

When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?

I don't dispute that he's guilty of all sorts of crimes and misdeeds, I'm just saying that the response--the punishment, if you will--is excessively harsh, especially in light of the fact that RB's frustrating and often misinformed views of the world are rarely grounded in malice so much as they represent legitimate philosophical positions. They may be more wrong than Trump's appreciation for his daughter's ass but not criminally so.

I just think it's good to maintain a reasonable level of anger and vitriol. I mean, if you're this pissed off about his views on international law, what are you going to say when he says something even more heinous, like advocating for blanket surveillance of Pakistanis or claiming that the UK is going to win the World Cup?

Most importantly, just think about what this does to you and your well-being. It can't be good. Just give it some consideration. You might have no regard for RB's feelings but it's prudent to look after yourself.

“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates

All very nice, but international agreements are not ruled by internal considerations of a high contracting party. To introduce your way of thinking in the way you deal with treaties means you are not a suitable party to engage with.

In the real world walking away from your liabilities means you become a pariah. And if you want to get some idea of what that means, ask the Argentineans.

We are not walking away from our liabilities we are honouring them in full. The irony is that the despicable Lisbon ratification was precisely what allowed us to Leave by invoking Article 50. Until then there was no exit. If you don't want people to exit from Treaties don't include an exit clause and then push them to invoking it.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

If you believe no government should ever be able to bind its successors, in any situation, then it doesn't really matter whether or not a govt went against its own election manifesto in joining an international treaty. And, if my recollection of our most recent discussion is even remotely accurate, your position is indeed that even the most kosher international treaties are in practice non-binding for the purposes of international law.

I believe that Treaties are binding for as long as you abide by them. If you wish to be a party to a Treaty then abide by it and honour it. If you don't then withdraw from the Treaty by whatever exit mechanism exists if one does (as here) or by repudiating it if none does.

What I do not believe is that you should claim to be honouring a Treaty while deliberately dishonouring it.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

Had the government that implemented the WTO done so having distinctly pledged at the election not to without a referendum first then yes it would be very dodgy the way it was endorsed.

Stop changing the goalposts. You just said you oppose any treaty that binds the successors of those who sign it. EVERY treaty does that. That's what separates a treaty from whatever is the British version of an executive agreement.

If your real problem is not having a veto as new issues come up, then you really should oppose membership in NATO (for most of its decisions), the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO (on compliance issues, where you don't even get a vote). You should also oppose treaties, like the NPT, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Genocide Convention, etc. So would you like to change the goalposts yet again, or do you think the UK should withdraw from all of its treaties?

It may verge on sophistry but he didn't say he opposed all treaties, only that he was opposed to the notion that international treaties agreed to by one government also bind subsequent governments. In other words, he likes NATO and doesn't want to leave it, but feels that the UK doesn't have to abide by the treaty if it doesn't want to.

“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates

If the circumstances arise where we deem it necessary to quit NATO then we reserve that right.

Since I believe we can quit Treaties when we want to, I don't find them binding indefinitely so don't oppose them. Loki completely mangled his interpretation of my oft stated thinking by substituting his belief that Treaties are binding in perpetuity for my one.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

If Donald Trump were to agree a Treaty with Putin that gave Russia the ability to change American domestic legislation, gave Russia oversight over the CIA, forbid many Democrat policies from becoming the law etc . . . And managed to ram that three Congress then Loki would you want to repeal that Treaty or be like "that's international law now so we have to do this forever".

If that was followed by landslide victories for the Democrats and a crushing humiliation for the GOP then should the GOP Russia treaty be untouchable?

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

If Donald Trump were to agree a Treaty with Putin that gave Russia the ability to change American domestic legislation, gave Russia oversight over the CIA, forbid many Democrat policies from being the law etc . . . Loki would you want to repeal that Treaty or be like "that's international law now so we have to do this forever".

So many problems in one sentence. Donald Trump can't ratify treaties. So he's free to sign whatever he wants with Putin; Congress wouldn't ratify it. Furthermore, treaties can't violate the US Constitution. This one certainly would. Meanwhile, the Lisbon Treaty was signed through all the legal and constitutional mechanisms that exist in Britain. Try again.

Rand, remind me why any country should sign a treaty with the UK if the UK has no intention of following treaties the second it becomes inconvenient?

We are not walking away from our liabilities we are honouring them in full. The irony is that the despicable Lisbon ratification was precisely what allowed us to Leave by invoking Article 50. Until then there was no exit. If you don't want people to exit from Treaties don't include an exit clause and then push them to invoking it.

I am not certain why you direct this at me; Theresa May sending the letter with the notification as per article 50 almost made me as happy as a moderate 'kipper'. I even feel a bit sorry for het getting all sorts of flak for not mentioning Gibraltar. As if that would have stopped our side from giving Spain a veto on that. Didn't these remoaners pay any attention to the draft negotiations mandate that probably will be given to Barnier? Basically everything the British PM suggested was wiped of the table like it needed to be set all over again.

Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

So many problems in one sentence. Donald Trump can't ratify treaties. So he's free to sign whatever he wants with Putin; Congress wouldn't ratify it. Furthermore, treaties can't violate the US Constitution. This one certainly would. Meanwhile, the Lisbon Treaty was signed through all the legal and constitutional mechanisms that exist in Britain. Try again.

Rand, remind me why any country should sign a treaty with the UK if the UK has no intention of following treaties the second it becomes inconvenient?

I knew you'd jump on the ratification hence why I'd already edited that in that it was able to be rammed through Congress. The Lisbon Treaty was signed and ratified by the government of the day and is being exited by a future government under the provisions the original one ratified. The exit clause is there just like NATO already has an exit clause too.

Interesting that you'd think the Treaty would violate the Constitution as while I was trying to be deliberately outrageous in that Treaty some of those provisos are what we are subjected to as EU members.

Countries should sign Treaties with the UK on the understanding it will be honoured for as long as all parties find it convenient. What's so objectionable to that? Other parties are welcome to exercise exit clauses too.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

So many problems in one sentence. Donald Trump can't ratify treaties. So he's free to sign whatever he wants with Putin; Congress wouldn't ratify it. Furthermore, treaties can't violate the US Constitution. This one certainly would. Meanwhile, the Lisbon Treaty was signed through all the legal and constitutional mechanisms that exist in Britain. Try again.

Rand, remind me why any country should sign a treaty with the UK if the UK has no intention of following treaties the second it becomes inconvenient?

In order to safeguard their access to tea and jam. Vital national interest.

“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates

Randblade, even though you are right in principle, you clearly have no idea how treates work in practise. Even your adamant claims that any high contracting party has the right to withdraw from a treaty is correct. But that is subject to rules either set in the treaty itself or in the Vienna Treaty Convention. Meaning that even getting out of the deal is subject to agreements entered into by previous governments. Disregarding those rules would make the UK a party with which one can not do deals of any kind.

Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

I have no qualms with accepting temporary transitions or notice periods as being part and parcel of sound governance. The point is for the long term that once the Eg 1 year (NATO) or 2 year (Lisbon) period is over then unless otherwise negotiated the Treaty ends.

If you want to be absolutely literal then it isn't possible to pass a new statute in a single day so therefore in the time it takes to change the law the prior government is of course still bound. The principle never meant the law can be changed overnight, just that it can if necessary be changed ultimately.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

If the circumstances arise where we deem it necessary to quit NATO then we reserve that right.

Since I believe we can quit Treaties when we want to, I don't find them binding indefinitely so don't oppose them. Loki completely mangled his interpretation of my oft stated thinking by substituting his belief that Treaties are binding in perpetuity for my one.

In his defense, Loki firmly cleaves to the idea that you can't actually leave a treaty unless it has an exit mechanism because other countries would disapprove (even if they would also disapprove of you using an existing exit mechanism) because disapproval makes it physically and philosophically impossible.

Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

In his defense, Loki firmly cleaves to the idea that you can't actually leave a treaty unless it has an exit mechanism because other countries would disapprove (even if they would also disapprove of you using an existing exit mechanism) because disapproval makes it physically and philosophically impossible.

LOL well said.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

It wasn't an attempt at humor, it was an attempt at snark. And snark is ineffective and sad when it's based on such a blatantly inaccurate analysis of a person's position. Being snarky and correct is annoying but being snarky and wrong is just embarrassing and provokes nothing so much as a strong feeling of fremdschämen. Given that your silly positions had to be clarified just a few posts back one would think that you'd have a little less patience with people misrepresenting their opponents' arguments but I guess that was a little too much to expect.

“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates

My positions been consistent all along not "clarified". Ludicrous misinterpretations or statements that I never wrote are not what I said.

Loki treats "international law" and treaties like Bible bashers treat scripture. International law and treaties are no better than domestic ones and will frequently need changing, dropping and amending.

Take the current dispute over Gibraltar for instance. Gibraltar is British territory, of this there is no legal doubt whatsoever as much as it irks Spain. Even the Spanish don't claim a legal claim unlike the Argies over the Falklands. The Treaty of Utrecht, Treaty of Paris etc all make this abundantly clear. Doesn't stop the Spanish from wanting that part of the Iberian peninsula and using other methods to try and reclaim the land. Similarly one provision within the Treaty of Utrecht was that Britain guaranteed not to let any Jews or Moors live in Gibraltar. Funnily enough that provision is no longer honoured by the UK nor does Spain claim it should be. It is one of those provisions that has faded into history as not something people would discuss or implement nowadays without [to my knowledge] ever having been technically reversed.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

Interesting developement though; from neutral the EU switched into pro-Spanish. And not matter what huffing and puffing goes on in London, the fact of the matter is that Spain may not have gotten sovereignty over the Rock of Tariq, but it sure has gotten a lot of power over its future.

Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

Nope. In fact, that was Loki's reaction even to the idea that Bush Jr. might withdraw the signature from the Kyoto Treaty, something which Clinton had never even bothered to submit to Congress because the Senate had made it clear they would reject the treaty by 98-0. It's quite amazing, really, the number of actions states undertake which Loki declared were flatly impossible because no one would ever trust that state again. He has a very bad habit of conflating whether a state action is feasible with whether he considers it a good idea based on his personal political interests and desires.

Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

It is pro-Spanish, because it will give Spain powers over Gibraltar's future it didn't have before. It was not in Spain's powers to remove Gibraltar from an agreement between the EU and the UK, not it is. Talk about a new Falklands is ridiculous of course; what this will amount to is Spain having full control over what happens to Gibraltars land borders once more.

Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.